About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
we have people like paul ryan giving interviews saying he's showing back up in washington, d.c. pretty much the same way he left? >> well, there is clearly a huge division between the two parties on two questions. whether we should raise revenue/how much revenue we should raise, the white house put out a fairly audacious, if not bold number yesterday of 1.6 trillion and the second question which president didn't quite address on friday which i expect to be asked about today, which involves can that amount be done without reverting back to letting the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire? i do want to say one quick thing about general petraeus and the investigation. i think it's a completely phony issue in response to what hogan said about whether the president should have been told earlier. the one thing we learned about all scandals from watergate on, what you don't want is the justice department in a very sensitive investigation back-channeling to the white house and telling them about criminal things, i think, if it had gone the other way, the republicans or other criti
paul ryan said is very interesting because we had an editorial on monday from glenn hubbard, mitt romney's economic adviser, essentially saying that yes, we recognize we need to talk about tax increases for the rich. i mean, he actually stressed that that should be the starting point of a discussion. he didn't say, glenn hubbard, that he increases -- he wants to see increases in tax rates. he was looking at closing loopholes, things like that, but he was willing to put that on the table. the problem, though, is that even if advisers like glenn hubbard are saying that, what we're seeing is people like paul ryan still very much signaling strong opposition to that idea. >> what's your head count in the senate, the number of republicans -- >> in the senate? >> yeah. >> i think the senate will pass whatever the leaders agree to. i think like with most of these things now, they'll have to go to the house floor without knowing -- without the votes. the question is who can you lose and still pass it? you'll lose some liberal democrats, but i think you're going to get a base support of dem
that the president is committed to that same thing? absolutely we do. >>> also congressman paul ryan is dismissing suggestions that president obama's victory gives his administration a mandate to raise taxes on the rich. returning to capitol hill yesterday for the first time since the election, ryan pointed the republicans keeping control of the house as a sign that the country isn't sold on the democrats' agenda. take a listen to this. >> whether the people intended or not, we've got divided government. >> you don't think there's a mandate here? >> i don't because then they would have put nancy pelosi in charge of the house of representatives. see, i think these ideas that we talked about, i think they're popular ideas. this is a very close election. and unfortunately, divided government didn't work very well the last two years. we're going to have to make sure it works in the next two years. that means, i think, that both parties have to talk to each other. >> but could you see yourself supporting a plan that raises tax rates? >> i'm not for raising tax rates. >> so you won't support a plan? >>
september after a hard-fought election. paul ryan is now speaking out for the first time. he says he is ready to reach across the aisle. >> it's part of my job to be a part of the solution to try to make this divided government work because the issues we talked about seven days ago are still the issues we have to deal with today, the economy, a debt crisis. we have got a health care system problem. i worry about our military. these same problems exist and we'll have to find a way of finding common ground to make them work. martha: paul ryan who hoped to be vice president of the united states come january, now finds himself in his congressional seat still in wisconsin and says he has got his work cut out for him. stuart varney joins me. host of the "varney & company" on the fox business network. stuart, your thoughts, first of all on what ryan had to say there? >> can i drag this back to what you called, martha, a dire warning and it is a dire warning and that was talked about by paul ryan right there. the dire warning is from moody's. they rate our debt. they say whether this debt is
and rape is god's will and got $5,000 from paul ryan's pac. that's the problem. that's the problem. it's not just one guy. they have become the raping party. literally. >> sweat like a wloar in church. he was trying to sound like a weird, hyper hippy with the talk about peace, love and friendship. >> sean: mitt romney? >> yeah, exactly. it is a smear movement, basically. i think conservatives have had this wrong for a long time. what they have said, we can ignore these guys because they don't have any ratings, nobody's listening. the truth is that they have really been able to get their message out a lot more than we ever thought and i think election day showed that. so to ignore these people is a major, major mistake. forget their ratings. pay attention to what they are saying because oftentimes when you hear on the shows ends up on the smear left web site, et cetera. there is no reason to just disregard this and say, they don't have enough people listening. >> sean: let's go back. this was a comment that was made before election day. again, fast eddie here. i will let him speak. shal
not believe you have to change the basic structure of medicare and medicaid, as paul ryan does. you can find great savings by working with the inefficiencies. >> excuse me. john. >> speaker boehner talked about not increasing tax rates for small businesses. if that framework could be accomplished, what kind of revenues could be raised within that framework? could you consider the limit on the value of deductions that the president had in his budget? >> in terms of small businesses, how do you define a small business? that is one of the slippery slopes. do you define a multibillion- dollar entertainment company, sports team, or hedge fund as a small business because their structure happens to be a business structure? everyone agrees that what we really mean when we say small business, what the typical voter envisions, is the local dry cleaner, the manufacturer who has 15 people making widgets and stuff like that. nobody thinks they should have their taxes raised. if it is used as code for people who are very wealthy and really large businesses, do not fit the traditional definition, that is a
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)